> Can you think why you wouldn't want a stable, Unix box,
with everything
> working out of the box?

Proprietary Unix is so 1980.

And NeXTStep was much more elegant before Apple Computer put
that wacky paint-job on it.

(I've got an aging iBook with OS X. The Apple-isms are
performance-robbing and really irritating over the long term.
Somewhere underneath all that gunk is a relatively decent BSD,
struggling to get free. However, if for some bizarre reason you
want to run lots of proprietary "desktop" software such as
MS-Office and Appleworks, or you're doing lots of audio-video
works, MacOS X is at least a way superior alternative to the
Microsoft-OS horrors.)

> Also, Stu showed how the fonts and *everything* go
smaller when you
> tile your windows. That is so cool. And perty; if not very
functional.

Here's another thing that OS X gets absolutely right:
internationalisation. No matter what your language and country
settings, the character set, directional flow (right-to-left
for some languages, don't forget) and other settings come up
absolutely perfectly with no effort, from that point onwards.
And every native (Cocoa or Carbon) application effortlessly
displays any internationalisation required by the data,
regardless of what you say yours is.

Fortunately for me, my own preference is Commonwealth
English (e.g., I use
"LANG=en_IE@euro"), so I'm
in luck on just about any OS.

--
Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to
denigrate
Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country
music,rick@linuxmafia.com
denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart

> ?? No. There is definitely progress in the world of the
Unix and
> Unix-like systems besides of Linux.

Most of that from running GNU, BSD, and other open-source
codebases on them: The proprietary Unixes have (in general
terms) been pretty much dinosaurs.

>> And NeXTStep was much more elegant before Apple
Computer put that
>> wacky paint-job on it.
>
> Maybe. I liked the NeXTStep Window System, too. Display
Postscript in
> 1992 meant really WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get).
Do you
> remember other systems in 1992?

The point is that Apple Computer did ghastly things to what
NeXT accomplished with its DPS setup. I'm not talking about the
trivial change from DPS to Display PDF, which wasn't
significant and was strictly for patent reasons. I'm referring
to the revised system's garish and greasy appearance, in sad
contrast to the elegantness of the original NeXTStep
desktop.

>> (I've got an aging iBook. The Apple-isms are
performance-robbing
>> and really irritating over the long term.
>
> Nobody stops you from disabling Aqua and using Fink to install a
recent
> version of XFree86 and the usual X applications you are
familiar with.

> (You only have to change one line in /etc/ttys to
disable Aqua, and you
> have a quiet and clear command-line box..
>
> You install XFree86 and change this line a second time, and
you have a
> graphical X login..

The xnu kernel interconnects a derivative of Mach to BSD
layers exposed to userspace. In so doing, NeXT many years ago
not only forked that codebase from Mach but also (for
performance reasons) erased the abstraction features
characteristic of microkernels. So, there's Mach-derived code
in there, but it's frozen in amber (so to speak), and no longer
even remotely qualifies as either Mach or as a microkernel.

Aside from that, what you're saying is non-responsive to to
my statement "Somewhere underneath all that gunk is a
relatively decent BSD, struggling to get free".

Peter, it would be a BSD even if it were running on actual
Mach, as opposed to the derived, monolithic-design xnu
codebase. I hope you understand that BSD refers, here, to a
comprehensive system framework, not to a particular kernel.
Indeed, there have been quite a number of BSDs running on
non-BSD-produced kernels (not just {Free|Net|Open|386}BSD and
BSDi's BSD OS). Those have not been limited just to NeXT's and
Apple Computer's xnu implementation. There's also Tenon
Intersystems' MachTen, and a number of others that don't come
readily to mind.

(I speak as a user of FreeBSD, a current user of MacOS X,
and a former user of NeXTStep and MachTen.)

> It includes some kernel work (e.g. the packet filter),
an API and a lot
> of userland derived from 4.4BSD and FreeBSD. It comes with
a gcc.

See "If I wanted FreeBSD", above.

> I don't see much disadvantages to use that instead of a
Linux
> distribution.

Ditto.

> It comes with an object oriented programming framework
embedded into the
> system (kernel and Window system) based on
Objective-C.

ObjC is cool. (Good thing we have that in gcc. Jobs was
obliged to donate that back to the gcc maintainers, with
considerable ill grace, under the terms of the GPL during the
NeXT, Inc. days.)

Enterprise Objects Framework and WebObjects are nice
accomplishments. Pity about them being proprietary.

> A language with the advantage of runtime binding
instead of compile
> time binding as C++ works.

See "ObjC is cool", above.

> You can get grumpy about the licence but that's not a
technical question.

You can ignore licensing, but that's an evasion.

> In short: if you are using Darwin without the Apple
add-ons or
> professional software, you have a system similiar to a
Linux box.

See "If I wanted FreeBSD", above. (I assume by "profesional",
you mean software under a restrictive, proprietary licence, a
wholly different concept, really.)

Please note that FreeBSD has one hell of a lot better
performance, and stability.

> Sorry, the subject invites to a flame war.

I suspect we're being treated to a "witnessing".
Proprietary-OS people seem to do that a lot. (I'd kind of
forgotten.)

> for example, we want to buy a laptop, and be able to
(i) connect to an
> ISP without first learning about ppp,

Suffices to use any modern Linux or *BSD with an advanced
installer (e.g., Libranet, Xandros, Mandrake). Of course, OS X
does this, too.

> (ii) use wireless and pcmcia without learning all about
their
> technicalities.

Ditto.

> (iii) install software without having to fix Makefiles,
or find
> dependencies.

Libranet, Xandros, Debian.... If you're having to futz with
these things on Linux, you're almost certainly making some
fundamentally wrong choices -- same as on OS X.

> so, we have been considering OS.X.

In general terms, it'll definitely work, and I certainly
hope you're happy with it. You'll have some headaches you won't
have with Linux:

Apple and its mindset. We can meet a decade from now to
discuss this again, and you'll probably nod in agreement,
whether or not you know what I mean now. (I say this as a Mac
user since 1985.)

Apple users and their mindset. Ditto.

Weird, inexplicable, and unfixable software failures,
including but not limited to bizarre cascading permissions
errors and filesystem problems.

Need to reboot at unplanned occasions for reasons that cannot
possibly rationally require it, and that are obviously
ridiculous for a Unix, e.g., you installed a userspace software
package.

The Mac guys will treat the above as perfectly normal. As
they always have, and always will. "Cupertino is your friend;
trust Cupertino.<tm>"

You'll gain:

Automatic hardware compatibility, on account of
constrained choice. (This is both good and bad, as a matter of
perspective.)

System coherence (at the cost of a stifling monoculture).

Excellent internationalisation.

Attention to detail, and polish. (I hope you like the design,
because you will change it significantly only at your
peril.)

> perhaps Bill Joy (co founder of Sun Microsystems)
captures our
> position more clearly in this interview with wired
magazine: "And yet
> you've been famously cool about Linux. Re-implementing
what I
> designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For
kids who are
> 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your
teeth. It's
> a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X
is a
> rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much
prefer it to
> Linux.

Bill Joy's been happily mouthing off like this, in goofily
general terms, for several years, comfortable in the knowledge
that he can pontificate endlessly to reporters without being
challenged by them on technology details. One of the pleasures
of retirement for him, apparently, is to take ex-cathedra
potshots at everything that's annoyed him for the last two
decades, without consequence (and you can bet that nothing has
cost him more money in stock price decline than the advent of
Linux).

The "cultural phenomenon" is indeed there, but unfortunately
it's the same old brain-damaged Mac user community with a small
sprinkling of (us) grizzled NeXTStep types who get lost in the
crowd.

And it's a "rock-solid system" compared to Mac OS9, but
that's setting the bar pretty low. Over the years, you'll have
problems that just simply shouldn't exist on a Unix. Part of
that's the sucky filesystem options, but it doesn't stop there.
(We could have a long digression about the HFS+ versus FFS/UFS
dilemma, but I'd rather not.)

> What about the open source idea in general?
> Open source is fine, but it doesn't take a worldwide
community to create
> a great operating system. Look at Ken Thompson creating
Unix...

Ken, Dennis, and Brian (the latter two of whom Joy seems to
have forgotten) created an incredibly primitive operating
system sufficient to run Space Travel and roff. It was Unix in
pretty much the same sense that Gottleib Daimler and Karl
Benz's modified horse-buggy was an automobile. Joy must be
aware that he's kissing the blarney stone in this and the items
that follow, but, hey, he's speaking for the benefit of
technophobe reporters and the Worldwide Church of
Cupertino.

> Stephen Wolfram writing Mathematica in a summer...

Impressive, but not to be compared to operating systems.

> James Gosling in his office making Java.

And it still doesn't have a decent graphics subsystem that
makes sense, still doesn't perform decently, and still is
vastly overhyped and forcibly adapted to situations where it
doesn't make sense. But I suppose Joy has to talk it up, to
help prop up his flagging portfolio.

Oddly enough, the one thing Apple Computer has done in
recent years that's most ticked off its third-party developer
community and almost incite them -- even the glassy-eyed
hordes of true-believer Carbon and Cocoa developers -- to open
rebellion, has been the de-emphasis of ObjC and lurch towards
Java. They've actually been obliged to soften that.

> Now, there's nothing wrong with letting other people
help,
> but open source doesn't assist the initial creative
act.

As Joy is fully aware, the benefit of open source lies not
at all in the initial creative act, but rather in the ability
to keep the software usable and thriving over long (decade and
more) time spans, despite business fortunes and misfortunes,
technical / political / monetary booms and busts, retirements,
apprenticeships, divorces and squabbles.

It appeals to those of us who've been burned once too many
times by being sucked into a proprietary framework that then
was withdrawn from the market, or rendered unusable, or moved
in some stupidly inexplicable direction in defiance of the user
community's wants and needs. We now go back there only when the
temporary gains outweigh the likelihood of long-term annoyance
and disappointment.

> What we need now are great things. I don't need to see
the source
> code. I just want a system that works."

And, over the long term, your best guarantee of a system
that continues to just work is open source. Just ask the BeOS
people.

> perhaps we're just becoming impatient in our old
age?

Perhaps Bill Joy is just becoming a cranky Sun shareholder
in his.

--
Cheers, "The only good goth is a shoggoth...."
Rick Moen -- Alistair J.R. Young, in r.a.sf.w.r-jrick@linuxmafia.com